Evelyn Farkas, head of the McCain Institute — a U.S.-based think tank named after the late Republican Senator John McCain — fears the return of Donald Trump as president of the U.S. would be the worst-case scenario for Ukraine.
The best-case scenario for Ukraine would be a full sweep by the Democratic party, with its candidate Vice President Kamala Harris taking the White House and its legislators gaining a majority in both houses of the U.S. Congress, she told the Kyiv Independent in a recent interview in Kyiv.
Farkas is a prominent American national security advisor who has served in a variety of roles in prior U.S. administrations.
In 2012, she was appointed deputy assistant defense secretary for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia under President Barack Obama.
She served in this role when Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014 and annexed the Crimean Peninsula, later orchestrating a war in the far eastern Donbas region that preceded Russia’s full-scale invasion launched in early 2022.
The Kyiv Independent sat down with Farkas in the Ukrainian capital days before the Nov. 5 U.S. elections to discuss their potential outcomes for Ukraine, U.S. President Joe Biden’s legacy in the war, North Korea’s involvement in the war, and the newly-formed “axis of evil.”
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
The Kyiv Independent: What’s the best-case scenario for Ukraine in the U.S. election?
Evelyn Farkas: I think the best-case scenario is Kamala Harris wins, we have a House and a Senate that are controlled by Democrats, and we are able to provide reliable assistance to Ukraine in a more than timely fashion. My hope is that she turns out to be like Harry Truman, a surprise kind of realist hawkish type president, which is possible as she's a prosecutor. She's said tough things, she said ‘I know how to deal with people like (Russian President Vladimir) Putin and (President of the People's Republic of China) Xi Jinping.’
There's a chance that she could end up being that person. The fact that she's taking Liz Cheney, (the elder daughter of former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and a Republican politician who opposes the party’s presidential nominee Donald Trump) and others into her coalition gives me hope that those are people she's going to have to listen to and maybe she'll even put them in a position of responsibility.
The best case scenario is also that we pay sufficient attention to Ukraine, not just with our financial resources and our weaponry but that we really figure out how can we help Ukraine achieve victory. But also in peacetime so that Ukraine becomes a stronger democracy.
We can't let the need for democratic progress impede our obligation to help Ukraine win. We have to balance all of these things, but simultaneously press forward on all fronts.
On the war, I think we need to take some more risks ourselves. We used to have people in uniform in the country during the war (between 2014-2022 before the start of the full-scale invasion). When I was in the Pentagon, we had trainers at the Yavoriv (training base in western Ukraine). There's no reason why we can't send people here from NATO countries to help in the rear. We should because the Ukrainians don't have enough manpower and women power. Training, logistics, and all things in the rear — those are all things we should be helping the Ukrainians with.
And then, of course, weaponry. The problem for the U.S. is that we also have a big debt and deficit and so there will be pressure on the overall spending but there will also be a lot of pressure to spend more in the defense realm in general to deter China and to help other allies like Israel. I don't really see any way out of spending on defense, whether it's directly for the U.S.’s defense or indirectly to help allies and partners who help provide a shield against all the bad guys. And that's just the best-case scenario, Harris.
The Kyiv Independent: There is a narrative among some that President Joe Biden’s administration has been supportive of Ukraine, but they haven't done enough. They've been too cautious, too afraid of escalation. Would you say that has been an adequate handling of this crisis?
Evelyn Farkas: No! Going back to when I was in the Obama Administration, there were budget constraints. We were told how much money we had, and within that amount of money, we had to provide assistance for Ukraine. Ukraine came in with its list, that (at the time) included F-16s. (Former Ukrainian President Petro) Poroshenko wanted those too. And we couldn't do those things because we had a budget.
That was in the early days. We didn't know how it was going to unfold. By the time the Biden Administration came in, it was clear what was going on even without the full frontal invasion. In fact, the question was, what was Putin going to do next? Because it wasn't working, because the war, as he had designed it, had not achieved the objective that he thought it would. So, therefore the full frontal invasion became for him “a necessity.” So I think anyone could have recognized that he wasn't going to keep it frozen forever if he wanted to achieve dominance over Ukraine.
I think the Biden Administration should have given more to Ukraine earlier, and certainly when we saw the troops massing in April of 2021. I mean it’s ridiculous. From that moment on we should have either quietly — it's hard for us to do anything quietly because we do have to get Congressional approval — but still, we could have done a lot more to beef up their defenses and maybe that would have deterred Russia.
I've advocated for all kinds of things – a no-fly zone, F-16s – we could have done any of those things at various points in time. We never took the initiative. We were always reactive rather than proactive and that's through all the administrations.
The Kyiv Independent: Where do you think that comes from with these administrations?
Evelyn Farkas: I think once they're in the White House, they start thinking about the worst-case scenario and that they could be responsible. That's when the nuclear topic comes up.
President Obama just didn't want to be responsible for a nuclear war. He just couldn't rule it out. (At the time) we explained why providing Javelins wouldn't be escalatory, but it wasn't convincing to (Obama) and then it popped up again with Biden. I don't know what intelligence they have that I didn’t. Certainly, during the Obama Administration, I didn't have any intelligence that — and I had access to very sensitive intelligence — indicated that Putin was going to use nuclear weapons in any scenario, not that I can recall.
We know that his nuclear doctrine says that if the existence of the (Russian) state is in danger, then Putin can use nuclear weapons. I guess you could draw a line from that to comments from Putin saying that it's “existential” for Russia that they keep Crimea, for example.
So then under the Biden administration, I can't rule out that there wasn't some reason why. There have been hints that there was some (reason). They’re always looking for what’s happening at nuclear facilities, to see if anything is moving, and possibly, they got alarmed at one point.
The Kyiv Independent: Are there people in Washington who have the appetite for something like sending trainers or helping with logistics, especially with a Harris administration?
Evelyn Farkas: I think so — I think we should take the risk and that there would be an appetite for it if you had a president leading and making the case.
I also think we shouldn't be afraid of doing something like establishing a no-fly zone for Ukraine, helping maybe open an airport in Lviv, for example, with our capabilities. Because, number one, we've done it with Israel. Yes, Iran's not a nuclear power, but they're close and North Korea is now involved. And, you better bet your bottom dollar they're a nuclear country.
One of our Ukrainian interlocutors said: ‘The Russians know what they want and they have partners who will deliver what they want. We know what we want but we don't have partners that will deliver what we want.’
The Kyiv Independent: About North Korea. To the whole world, this seems like an extremely escalatory move. And it does seem like the U.S., the Biden Administration rather, is reacting with remarkable caution.
Evelyn Farkas: It's ridiculous. It's terrible. It's outrageous.
They're probably having a muted reaction because they're making the mistake of looking at what it means militarily. Yes, militarily, I don't think the North Koreans are going to win the war for Russia. In fact, it's probably going to blow back in the faces of the Russians and the North Koreans.
Already, there's been some reporting by CNN in particular that the North Korean rumor mill is out. I'm sure South Korea has used all its means to get the word out to North Korea that their sons are being sent to Russia, not to do an exercise, which is what they told the troops.
It won’t change anything militarily, but diplomatically and in terms of the signals it sends that we don't respond, it's horrible because it really is an expansion.
It really is as if we're one more step into World War III. The new leader of Hezbollah said we're in a global war. He spelled it out. We are the only ones who are like, ‘No, no, we're not in a global war,’ which is insane. And when I say, 'we,' it’s not just us Americans, but the Europeans as well. People, pull yourselves together.
Introducing official
merch from the Kyiv Independent
The Kyiv Independent: There’s what’s now being called this “axis of evil” including North Korea, Russia, Iran, and China. As this group forms, is the West not taking it seriously?
Evelyn Farkas: I think the U.S. is taking it seriously. We know that we are the strongest economic military-political power in the world, and with our allies and partners in Europe and Asia and then the Middle East, we can prevail.
But that doesn't mean we should be relaxed because these guys have all kinds of asymmetric means and they can make various moves where they can prevail in the short run to seek an advantage. We can always come roaring back. I don't think that's changed.
It's just like World War I and World War II. If they probe, if Putin decides the sabotage operations indicate that we're weak, that NATO is a paper tiger, and then decides to make an incursion into (NATO member) Estonia, and we do nothing, we don't invoke Article 5, he will think then that he's won. We can’t allow that to happen.
Eventually, we'll be at war with Russia. I don't see any other way because he's not going to stop. We're gonna have to stop him.
The Kyiv Independent: So looking at Trump, do you think that he and his team understand these risks that you just laid out?
Evelyn Farkas: First, you have to answer the question of who his team is.
If it's Robert O'Brien, who was his national security adviser, does he understand how the world works and what the threats are? Robert O'Brien is still in the circle. And so is Mike Pompeo, former U.S. secretary of state (in Trump’s first presidency). He understands the risk. He did some, I think, reckless things diplomatically by negotiating with the Taliban and getting nothing in return, but he does know what he's doing.
There will be some other people like that in the administration with real national security experience, who know what's going on and can see the stakes.
There are some other people in that category, like Elbridge Colby who is senior in the Trump ranks, who say that China is the real risk and we should ignore Russia.
It's ridiculous. Russia is China's pawn. Russia is being used by China, from the Chinese perspective, to weaken us. China loves this. And once they see Putin getting his way, they’ll see we’re distracted, and they’ll turn to take Taiwan. We don't know what Xi Jingping’s time frame is, but we can't be complacent about that either.
The Kyiv Independent: So it does depend on Trump's team but would you say then that his rhetoric around the elections is populist? Or do you think he and (his vice presidential nominee) J.D. Vance, particularly reflect these views?
Evelyn Farkas: Who knows what their views are. Trump's view is he wants to do everything he can to help Putin because for whatever reason he likes these strongmen. He's fascinated by him in particular.
And so it will take all the will and the fighting of the people under him to maintain the existing policy of support for Ukraine and opposition to Russia's autocratic agenda.
J.D. Vance is empty. He just goes with the flow, and who knows? If Trump passes from the scene, he could suddenly become interested in helping Ukraine. He’s a cipher because he lacks principles, from my perspective.
The Kyiv Independent: Is there concern that Trump feels that he learned his lesson from his first term, when he had people around him who acted as guard rails, constantly blocking things, and that he may be thinking, ‘not this time. I'm going to put people in who are going to do the extreme stuff.’ That's the fear. Would you say that's a fair assessment?
Evelyn Farkas: Absolutely. He's gonna pick all the yes men.
Kash Patel, for example, is a guy who also seems to have no principles, only wants power and has a sense of grievance like Trump, so he's willing to do whatever it takes to make Trump happy.
The Kyiv Independent: And how do you think that will affect foreign policy with respect to Ukraine?
Evelyn Farkas: They'll do whatever Trump says. Trump says, let's get out of NATO. They'll try.
The Senate did pass a piece of legislation in the aftermath of Trump's last attempt saying that the Senate has to ratify withdrawal. But he doesn't care about the rule of law. Congress might say, well you have to keep spending money on NATO, but he won’t care. He could cause a whole constitutional crisis/meltdown.
The Kyiv Independent: What can the Biden administration do in these last months to support Ukraine and what do you expect from the next Ramstein format meetings of allies on providing weaponry to Ukraine?
Evelyn Farkas: There's an understanding that Ukraine has a small window, regardless of whoever wins, but certainly if Trump were to win.
So in the worst-case scenario (Trump winning), Biden is going to want to cement his legacy and he's going to want to help Zelensky as much as possible in the last days of his term. But even if Harris comes in, I think he will be motivated to cement his legacy.
I understand they are talking about what they can do to respond to (Zelensky’s) ‘victory plan.’ I think they are looking at NATO invitation and the modalities of that.
I would want him to number one, remove the restrictions (on Ukraine using Western-provided long-range missiles for deep strikes into Russia). I would be shocked if they didn't tell the U.K. that Ukraine could use its Storm Shadows.
But I think that we also should — and there's a decent chance that we also will, a more than 50% chance — lift the restrictions on the long-range capabilities. They're holding back right now. They have a specific fear right now, that's not fear of Putin's escalation necessarily, but the fear of something going awry and negatively impacting (Harris’) election.
And where are the Patriot (missile systems) they committed in May? They need to accelerate the provision of assistance, they need to bring trainers and put them here in Kyiv. They need to put people in to help with logistics. They need to consider providing some air support to protect civilians. We can just say, ‘We're not getting involved in the war. We're protecting civilians. We're protecting the airport.’
It’s also important to push toward the resolution of the conflict, push to return things to normal. Clearly, the administration also has to have a conversation with the Ukrainians. We're thinking maybe about a unity government because it's still impossible to hold elections.
One, because the (Ukrainian) Constitution prohibits it, but also because it would be so expensive, like, five billion dollars, so hard to do credibly, and would leave some people disenfranchised.
And also the money. It’s really important to unfreeze that money (a $50 billion loan from profits of frozen Russian assets abroad) so that Ukraine has funds. And if Ukraine puts in place reforms, if they address the structural problems that lead to corruption, it will be a wealthy country.
Kateryna Denisova
